The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the conviction part against Defendant A in the judgment of the lower court), the victim P knew that the application was filed with J mining area, thereby purchasing the right to the mining area from H, and is a registered mining area, and thereby, the Plaintiff G (hereinafter “G”).

In addition to the investment in the business of the defendant A, the defendant A was employed in G around the end of January 2005 and was employed as the head of G's aggregate business from around September 2003, or did not participate in G's business such as preparing "business franchise" or participating in the investment presentation, etc., and there was no deception by deceiving the defendant A to make an investment. After H escaped overseas, the victim was aware of such circumstances, and the victim was made an application for a mining area under the name of the above defendant B and the victim, etc., and there was no fact of deceiving the victim by deceiving the defendant A to make an application for a mining area under the name of the victim, etc., and there was no voluntary statement made by the defendant A to make a confession at the fourth prosecutor's office at the time of investigation, and the court below did not have the admissibility of the part of the facts charged by deceiving the victim under the conspiracy with the defendant B et al., which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of unfair sentencing.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below, the Defendants committed before May 23, 2006, the date of escape from H, an accomplice, and the fraud committed thereafter are identical with the criminal intent, and thus, it should be deemed as a single crime. However, the court below held that this constitutes a substantive concurrent relation, and contrary to this, it constitutes an electronic crime.